Uniswap founder Hayden Adams is making the case that tokenized stocks could eventually trade more efficiently against related assets such as sector or broad-market indexes, rather than relying on dollars as the default counterparty for every transaction. In his example, an on-chain market for Nvidia shares paired with the SPY ETF token, NVDA/SPY, could reduce inventory and hedging costs for liquidity providers compared with a conventional NVDA/USD pool.
The proposal rests on a familiar feature of automated market makers: liquidity is most efficient when the two assets in a pool tend to move together. Adams argues that public blockchains could extend that logic from crypto-native markets to equities, creating pools built around correlations between stocks, indexes, commodities, or other tokenized assets.
That approach would reshape the role of the dollar in on-chain trading without eliminating it. A trader seeking to enter or leave the system in cash terms could use an SPY/USD market, while a trader moving between Nvidia and the index could use NVDA/SPY directly. The index pair would serve as a liquid bridge, potentially avoiding a second swap through dollars.
Correlation pairs target market-making costs
Adams said Uniswap has settled more than $4.6 trillion in cumulative trading volume. He also said decentralized venues have increased their share of spot cryptocurrency trading volume from less than 1% to more than 20%, though the supplied material did not provide a time frame or independent measurement for that comparison.
AMMs allow users to deposit two assets into a smart-contract pool and earn a share of trading fees when other users swap between them. Rather than relying on a dealer to post each quote, the pool’s pricing changes automatically according to a mathematical curve as its asset balances shift.
The model initially found its strongest use in smaller cryptocurrency markets, where professional market makers had limited reason to commit capital. Token teams and early holders could create a market in a single blockchain transaction, while participants willing to take the asset risk supplied the initial liquidity.
Stablecoin pools later became a major category. Adams said pools such as USDC/USDT allowed passive liquidity strategies to compete because the assets generally maintain similar dollar values, limiting the capital and hedging demands associated with more volatile pairs. He said professional firms subsequently reduced activity in some stablecoin swaps as lower-cost passive liquidity became more competitive.
The same principle underpins the proposed stock-index pools. A liquidity provider holding both Nvidia and an S&P 500 index fund remains exposed to equities, but the two sides of the pool may move more similarly than Nvidia and cash. That can reduce the size and frequency of hedges required to manage changes in the pool’s inventory.
In conventional equity markets, market makers often seek to remain “delta neutral,” meaning they offset directional price exposure through shares, futures, options, or other derivatives. Those hedges carry trading costs, financing costs, and operational complexity. Adams said a participant already willing to own correlated assets could provide liquidity without paying for the same degree of external protection.
Tokenization could move liquidity beyond dollar pairs
Adams described traditional equity market making as a vertically integrated business, combining capital, trading strategy, execution, clearing, and distribution. He cited Citadel Securities as an example, saying the firm handles roughly 25% of U.S. equity trading volume and reported $12.2 billion in net trading revenue last year while using about $21 billion in trading capital.
On public blockchains, those functions can be broken apart. Smart contracts execute swaps, blockchain networks record settlement, and users can self-custody assets or choose a custody provider. Liquidity provision can then be opened to a wider group of participants, including holders of the underlying assets who may accept inventory exposure that a market-making firm would otherwise hedge.
That structure could favor participants with the lowest cost of holding a particular asset. A long-term holder of tokenized Nvidia shares and tokenized SPY, for example, may be more comfortable supplying both assets to an AMM than a trading firm that must immediately offset every inventory change.
The model also reflects patterns already visible in decentralized finance. Adams said Ethereum-based tokens frequently develop their deepest markets against ETH, while Solana-based tokens commonly pair with SOL. Stablecoins form another major category, alongside a limited number of highly liquid “bridge” pairs that connect separate trading clusters.
Tokenized securities could produce similar networks of liquidity if sufficient issuance, custody, compliance, and redemption infrastructure becomes available. A technology stock might trade most actively against a technology-sector token or a broad-market ETF token, while the ETF token maintains deeper pools against dollar-backed stablecoins.
Early on-chain activity remains limited
Adams said 10 tokenized stocks had traded against SPY through on-chain liquidity pools, generating $33 million in volume from more than 11,000 traders during their first 12 days. He said some transactions took place while U.S. equity markets were closed, and that certain swaps moved directly from one stock token to another without using dollars as an intermediate asset.
Those figures point to early demand for non-dollar trading routes, but they remain small beside the scale of U.S. equity markets. Liquidity depth, token redemption arrangements, regulatory treatment, corporate-action handling, and the reliability of price feeds would all determine whether these pools can support larger trading activity.
The economics also remain demanding for liquidity providers. Crypto commentator Cody tested an NVDA/SPY liquidity strategy using historical data and estimated impermanent loss of about 10.8% over three years. Impermanent loss occurs when the price relationship between assets in an AMM pool changes, leaving the provider with a different asset mix than they would have held outside the pool.
Cody calculated that, without compounding fees, the strategy would have needed roughly 11.5% in annualized fees to overcome that gap. He added that current on-chain liquidity and fee levels make reaching that threshold difficult in practice.
That finding limits the claim that correlated pairs automatically create attractive passive returns. Correlation can reduce risk relative to a stock-dollar pool, yet it cannot remove volatility, changes in relative performance, smart-contract risk, or periods when trading fees fail to compensate liquidity providers.
AMM design is becoming more specialized
Adams also pointed to Uniswap v4 hooks, which allow developers to add customized functions around a liquidity pool. He referenced a DualPool hook designed to direct idle passive AMM funds into lending strategies when they are not being used for swaps.
Such designs aim to improve capital efficiency, though lending yield introduces a separate set of risks, including borrower defaults, protocol failures, and liquidity mismatches. Higher yield is therefore not a guaranteed solution to impermanent loss or weak trading demand.
The emerging case for tokenized correlation pairs is less about replacing every stock-dollar market than creating additional routes for assets that share underlying economic exposure. If tokenized equities gain durable liquidity, stock-index pools could give holders a way to trade and provide liquidity around relative performance—such as Nvidia versus the broader market—while using dollar pools mainly for entry, exit, and settlement.
Explore how tokenized equities and index-based trading could reshape AMM correlation pairs, hedging costs, and on-chain market structure.
Disclaimer: The content on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not represent the views or financial advice of Toobit. We make no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information and shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from its use. Investing in digital assets involves risk; users should independently evaluate their financial situation and the risks involved. For further details, please consult our Terms of Service and Risk Disclosure.
